Some of these guys are highly visible — the likes of Isiah Thomas, Larry Bird and Kevin McHale, watching their team play while stationed in the shadows of the passageways that lead to the locker rooms.

Some have fancy titles — President of Basketball Operations, Executive VP of Basketball Operations, Chief Executive Officer or simply President.

But they all perform the duties of what has been traditionally called the "General Manager."

What exactly is it that these guys do?

After conferring with their scouts and coaching staffs, they are ultimately responsible for their team's choices in the annual draft. GMs are likewise the primary negotiators of the contracts for all those involved in basketball operations — including, but not limited to players, coaches, assistant coaches, video coordinators, trainers, equipment managers and public relations staff.

An assistant GM routinely deals with the minutia of these contracts and also keeps track of his team's salary cap situation. An assistant will also handle the technicalities inherent in waiving players, signing minor-leaguers to 10-day contracts and similar details.

But the single most important duty of a general manager is deciding which players should be traded (and for whom) and which free agents should be signed. The coach is frequently, but not always, consulted on these decisions.

And therein lies a chronic problem: The GM overvaluing the players he has acquired while the coach feels that he has to suffer the consequences of coaching someone else's players.

In any case, let's take a quick look at the NBA's GMs and see how well, or how poorly, they addressed their respective team's off-season needs.

NOTE — Because any forthcoming contributions that might be made by rookies are strictly guesswork at this point, incoming school boys will simply be ignored Also, any re-signed players will likewise not be included.

Atlanta — Billy Knight
Team needed: Power player in front court. A reliable point guard. A scoring guard. Experience pills for the kiddie corps.

Team got: An over-priced Joe Johnson, who's a dependable scorer but an iffy point guard. Center Zaza Pachulia, who can rebound and defend but can't score.

Job evaluation: Making the Hawklings flight-worthy is a 3-4 year task. Knight's on the right track, but his additions are not enough to make either a significant or an immediate difference.

Grade: B-

Boston — Danny Ainge
Team needed: To get rid of Gary Payton, Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce so that the kids will have room and time in which to grow.

Team got: Two out of three ain't bad.

Job evaluation: Ainge is finally willing to take a step back for the sake of some day soon taking two steps forward.

Grade: B+

Charlotte — Bernie Bickerstaff (doubles as coach)
Team needed: Power bigs to lessen the huge load borne by Emeka Okafor. A talent up-grade throughout the rest of the roster.

Team got: Jake Voskuhl! Strictly a booby prize.

Job evaluation: Even though Bickerstaff was starving, all he could come up with was a stale donut.

Grade: F

Chicago — John Paxson
Team needed: A steady man in the middle with dynamic post-up skills. Shooters everywhere. A better point guard.

Team got: Sam Cassell and Cuttino Mobley, a pair of conscienceless machine-gunners.

Job evaluation: Another Clippers' squad fashioned in Baylor's own image — good offense, no defense.

Grade: D+

L.A. Lakers — Mitch Kupchak
Team needed: Big, long-armed point guard. A center. A power forward. A scorer for the second unit. Defenders.

Team got: Aaron McKie, a vet who will thrive backing up both wing spots. Kwame Brown, still a project.

Job evaluation: The team still lacks an experienced bruiser. And Kupchak still hasn't gotten the point.

Grade: D

Memphis — Jerry West
Team needed: Two physical, hardworking big men. A point guard who can run a team. A wingman who can score.

Team got: Damon Stoudamire, a pint-sized scorer who passes only as a last resort. Eddie Jones, a notorious softie on the downside of a disappointing career. Lorenzen Wright, a lazy big man. Raul Lopez, a bonafide playmaker who can't play a lick of defense.

Job evaluation: West had the right idea. The team desperately needed an overhaul, but the new players are too slick and not powerful enough for the Grizz to win consistently on the road.

Grade: C+

Miami — Pat Riley
Team needed: A brace of point guards. A scorer off the bench. Except for Udonis Haslem, defenders at-large.

Team got: Jason Williams, as wild and destructive as a hurricane. The decaying but still stubborn remains of Gary Payton. Antoine Walker, the perpetrator of bad shots and even worse defense. James Posey, returning from a year-long vacation in Memphis.

Job evaluation: Riley brought in lots of bodies, lot of talent and lots of potential headaches.

Grade: B-

Milwaukee — Larry Harris
Team needed: A center. A point guard. A young, active power forward. More scoring. A player-friendly coach with infinite patience.

Team got: Andrew Bogut, who already talks a big game. Bobby Simmons, a solid wingman who gets the most out of his slightly above-average talent. Charlie Bell, a shooter who doesn't do much else. Jiri Welsch, a spot shooter who needs to play in a disciplined system. Terry Stotts, a nice guy who won't inspire his players to overachieve.

Job evaluation: Harris got lucky with the apparent return to health of T. J. Ford. There's enormous pressure on Bogut to also walk the walk. The team still lacks a core of hard-nose defenders, but Harris has them moving in the right direction.

Grade: B-

Minnesota — Kevin McHale
Team needed: A strong-armed center. An unselfish point guard. Bench scorers. A no-name coach to take the blame for McHale's habitual incompetence.

Team got: Marko Jaric, who will try to do the right things but lacks speed and quickness. Nikoloz Tsitishvili, a Dirk Nowitzki wannabe. Dwane Casey, who will always smile and say positive things about his boss.

Job evaluation: The Big Ticket vs. the world. How much longer can McHale's history with the University of Minnesota keep him untouchable?

Team got: Marc Jackson, a chest-beating, self-aggrandizing bully with a sloppy game. Jeff McInnis, who has the talent to be a superb player, but has yet to show a mature mindset. Lamond Murray — wind him up and let him shoot, but don't expect him to pass or defend. Scott Padgett, whose shooting and hustle almost compensate for his lack of talent.

Job evaluation: Another good job by Thorn. The new roster constitutes an upgrade over the old, but the team still isn't as good as the local media hype claims.

Grade: B

New Orleans/Oklahoma City — Allan Bristow/Jeff Bower
Team needed: A sturdy point guard. More power up front. Creative scorers on the wings. Defenders at every spot.

Team got: Rasual Butler, a scorer deluxe. Kirk Snyder, a malcontent who did nothing in his rookie season. Jackson Vroman, a lean big man coming off an injury-plagued rookie season. Bostjan Nachbar, a slasher who can defend some.

Job evaluation: To quote Cordelia from King Lear, "Nothing can come of nothing."

Grade: F

New York — Isiah Thomas
Team needed: A slew of talented bigs. To get rid of expensive dead wood. A true point guard. A new coach who can turn chicken crap into chicken salad. A discernible blueprint for success.

Team got: Jerome James, bloated body with a bloated salary. In Eddy Curry, a potent scorer who doesn't rebound, play defense or pass. Jamison Brewer, a journeyman point guard. Larry Brown, a very good coach who believes all the good things said about him … and none of the bad.

Job evaluation: Zeke is still a sucker for the latest and greatest thrill.

Grade: C-

Orlando — John Weisbrod/Dave Twardzik/Otis Smith
Team needed: Perimeter shooters. Mobile small forward to reduce Grant Hill's minutes. An active center. A new coach who can relate to the modern generation of players.

Job evaluation: Not nearly enough sleight of hand for the Magic to fool anybody into thinking they are playoff bound.

Grade: D-

Philadelphia — Billy King
Team needed: A viable power forward to rescue Chris Webber from totally embarrassing himself. A center who can score in the low post. A coach who can command the respect of all of the players. A second ball with which A. I.'s teammates can play.

Team got: Lee Nailon, a scorer who shoots first and never asks questions. Steven Hunter, a wonderful role player who fortuitously enough doesn't need the ball to contribute. Maurice Cheeks, who'll let A.I. express his inner child.

Job evaluation: As long as Allen Iverson continues to hog the ball, all of King's moves are strictly cosmetic.

Job evaluation: Will play with three seriously flawed centers — (1) Vitaly Potapenko, slow and foul-prone; Robert Swift is still wet behind the ears; Moore is a light-weight. Also look for the team's head-case, Danny Fortson, to take a turn in the middle. Bob Weiss is a nice guy who nevertheless just might end the season in a straitjacket (which, as long as he wears a neck tie, should not be a violation of David Stern's corporate dress code).

Grade: C

Toronto — Rob Babcock
Team needed: A mature point. Two power players, one to start at center and the other to back up both the center and the power forward slots. A scorer off the bench. Better defenders. A quantum leap in talent.

Team got: Mike James, a scorer still learning how to run a team.

Job evaluation: The Raptors will get worse before (and if) they get any better.

Grade: F+

Utah — Kevin O'Connor
Team needed: A forceful center with pivot-power. A point guard.

Team got: Milt Palacio, strictly a backup point. Devin Brown, loaded with potential. And the return of Greg Osterdawg.

Job evaluation: What were Utah's most important accomplishments during the off-season? The healing of Matt Harpring, Andre Kirilenko and Carlos Boozer. Even so, that's no reason for O'Connor to have been so passive.

Grade: D+

Washington — Ernie Grunfeld
Team needed: Defenders. A backup point with court vision. A scorer off the bench. A shooter/scorer at the two spot.

Team got: The aptly named Chucky Atkins, since "chuck" is what he wants to do. Antonio Daniels will eventually be an overall improvement over the departed Larry Hughes. Caron Butler? When it comes to killing the opponents with jumpers, Wiz fans will be able to say "the Butler did it."

Job evaluation: All the minuses have become pluses, except on defense.

Grade: C+

Mordecaii

10-21-2005, 05:45 PM

I know this is a slightly biased viewpoint, but I think this guy gave a horrible review of Larry Bird. Sarunas is a completely different type of player than Reggie so it's no fair to compare them, and we also somehow managed to get Danny who has been a huge help. I don't agree at all.

sweabs

10-21-2005, 05:47 PM

Raptors = F+.

Well, at least it's an F+, and not an F.

Frank Slade

10-21-2005, 05:55 PM

Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com

Kravitz is that you ??? I thought I smelled something..

Well we might as well give up.
Apparently finley and van exel are far superior additions, then Artest, Granger Sarunas.

Oh well better luck next year....

Bball

10-21-2005, 05:56 PM

Not taking the draft into account makes his grading system extra worthless.

And where's the grade for how much money the GM was able to save the owners? ;)

-Bball

Anubis04

10-21-2005, 06:06 PM

1. Anyone who doesn't fail Isiah Thomas as a GM is incompetent.

2. "Maurice Evans, a dynamic scorer with unlimited potential."
ok...Maurice Evans is a decent backup, but this is stretching it quite a bit, I live at the University of Michigan, and every friend I ahve who is a pistons fan has basically never heard of him.

3. Dale Davis - hes a fine worker, and still a good player...but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, even here in Michigan who believes 2 yrs, 7 million is a fair price for shaq-insurance.

I could go on, but I wont...its pretty apparent to me that Rosen is hardly being impartial, but rather simply touting players his own preconceived (and rather badly ones at that) opinions. Personally, I'm wouldnt be insulted, after all the bottom line is that
I dont care for the opinions of the incompetent.

Destined4Greatness

10-21-2005, 06:18 PM

Detroit, Charlotte, Indy, And Golden State just scream WTF too me. And San Antonio too I guess I mean come on all he had to do was say championship. Thats no skill at all.

BTW in the things he said we needed, Didn't we get them all. You know, just seems like it. But hey according to this gal Karl Malone isn't a HoF.

beast23

10-21-2005, 06:35 PM

Not taking the draft into account makes his grading system extra worthless.

And where's the grade for how much money the GM was able to save the owners? ;)

-BballAgreed. And maybe even include comments regarding the parameters or restrictions that the GM had to work with.

So I give Rosen a solid C-. Oops, see I forgot to filter in the preconditions as well. I guess I'd have to boost Rosen to an A, since I forgot to acknowledge that "he ain't working with a full 52 cards".

Shade

10-21-2005, 06:44 PM

I don't even know what to say. This guy is clearly a moron of epic magnitude.

Kaufman

10-21-2005, 06:56 PM

Agreed. Seems that Rosen might just be trying to stir up the pot.

Anthem

10-21-2005, 08:57 PM

Well, he sure likes Detroit and San Antonio.

Eindar

10-21-2005, 09:44 PM

I like the way he lambasted Charlotte, when they're working with a cap that's, what, half of the rest of the league? Idiot.

wintermute

10-21-2005, 09:53 PM

Well, he sure likes Detroit and San Antonio.

well, that's a no-brainer. championship teams obviously need less tweaking than, say, the hawks or raptors. i bet dumars and buford could have slept through the summer and still have "expert" praise them for keeping the core team intact.

despite saying that the draft will be neglected, milwaukee's bogut somehow got included in the summary. by the same token, saras should not be considered either - he's still a nba rookie, after all. either way, ignoring rookies is assinine.

is it just me, or did rosen bad-mouth practically every player he touched on?

Anubis04

10-21-2005, 09:59 PM

except maurice evans and his "limitless potential":rolleyes:

Anthem

10-21-2005, 09:59 PM

well, that's a no-brainer. championship teams obviously need less tweaking than, say, the hawks or raptors. i bet dumars and buford could have slept through the summer and still have "expert" praise them for keeping the core team intact.
If he'd said that, I might agree. But when your offseason is Evans and Davis, and that gets you an A-, and other teams did much more and get D/F, you gotta wonder.

is it just me, or did rosen bad-mouth practically every player he touched on?

It's not you. That's why he's Charlie Rosen.

NorCal_Pacerfan

10-21-2005, 10:02 PM

Not even worth the eye cycles to read it all. Complete nonsense.

Unclebuck

10-21-2005, 10:22 PM

The crazy thing is does anyone believe for one second that Saras is in any way supposed to replace Reggie. I sure don't.

Believe_in_blue

10-21-2005, 10:52 PM

The crazy thing is does anyone believe for one second that Saras is in any way supposed to replace Reggie. I sure don't.

Yeah, that was the stupidest comparison ever. Both are good shooters, thats the only thing that could possibly compare. Saras could possibly be one of the leagues best passers in a few years. Something that you would never say about Reggie. Reggie was great at moving w/o the ball. Something that you would never say about Saras. No comparison.

FreshPrince22

10-21-2005, 11:14 PM

Don't hate... Dumars is a beast. I realize that "limitless potential" is a strech. But, it's looking more and more like Maurice Evans is going to be the steal free agent of the offseason. So far he's been great, averaging:

21mpg, 12ppg (57% FG, 75% 3FG), 4rpg, 1spg, to go with stellar defense and hustle on both ends. Per ~42 minutes (starter minutes) that's about 24points and 8 boards. All that and Joe D snagged him for 1.5M per year while everyone was oogling over Finley.

Not only that, but he stole the Pistons central division rival's starting center (to be our 5th big man and Shaq insurance). I don't get why people care how much he paid. He got Evans lined up, and spent the rest on Dale. If it was a long term deal I could understand, but it's a 2 year deal. Next year that will be a great expiring contract to package up with someone to pull a dealine deal (ala Sheed trade). Expiring contracts follow one rule of thumb.... The bigger, the better. That's why he gave him as much as possible. Dumars just thinks a step ahead of most GMs in this league.

And BTW, Anubis04, they don't have to be a big name player to be a great pick-up (most fans can't grasp that concept). Dumars has made a living snagging under-the-radar guys, right before they breakout (Billups, Ben, etc.).

I still don't get how you can grade the GM's offseason yet though, since the regular season hasn't even started.

And Davis and Evans aren't impressive FA additions. They're aright but nothing to get excited or worry about.

Sontayjuan

10-21-2005, 11:25 PM

Not only that, but he stole their central division rival's starting center(who actually would have been their backup/3rd string center if everyone was healthy) to be our 5th big man and Shaq insurance.

fixed it for ya

FreshPrince22

10-22-2005, 12:10 AM

Every time you post you seem you just want to stir the pot.

No offense, but we already have a guy for that round this way. His name is "Ronnie Artest"

We are not hating anything, but to compare the Pistons and the Pacers off season and see such a darastic change in grade is laughable.

Then again, I stopped reading after I read the Hawks and the Pacers "grades"

I can just scream out random bulls*hit while having sex and it would make up a better piece of reading then this tool Rosen has put together'

I didn't say anything about the Pacers grade. But I saw quite a few mentions of the Pistons grade being too high. So I addressed it. In fact, I think the Pacer's grade is a quite a bit too low. I don't agree with the people who count Artest as an addition that should be credited to the GM though. Sarunas will help out a lot though.

FreshPrince22

10-22-2005, 12:14 AM

fixed it for ya

who would have been the starting center last year if they were healthy? Foster? Because I seem to remember him playing during the playoffs (behind Dale). Either way, it doesn't matter. He was a big part of the comeback you guys made mid-season to get into the playoffs (and advance).

SlamSally

10-22-2005, 12:23 AM

who would have been the starting center last year if they were healthy? Foster? Because I seem to remember him playing during the playoffs (behind Dale). Either way, it doesn't matter. He was a big part of the comeback you guys made mid-season to get into the playoffs (and advance).

The reason why Foster didn't play as many minutes as Dale was because he had not fully recovered from his hip injury. Remember he had to have surgury during the offseason. Dale, from what I recall, was a no-show in the playoffs. It was Foster making the waves. That 20 rebound night was great.:-p

317Kim

10-22-2005, 12:42 AM

D+ :-o !?!? :crazy:

Guaransheed

10-22-2005, 01:39 AM

Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com

Kravitz is that you ??? I thought I smelled something..

Well we might as well give up.
Apparently finley and van exel are far superior additions, then Artest, Granger Sarunas.

Oh well better luck next year....LOL sorry dude but trying to give Larry the credit for the nutjobs suspension ending is hilarious

Anthem

10-22-2005, 01:44 AM

LOL sorry dude but trying to give Larry the credit for the nutjobs suspension ending is hilarious

I have no idea what this means.

Jermaniac

10-22-2005, 11:26 AM

Thats the same guy that said Lebron James is only an average NBA player

Pacers#1Fan

10-22-2005, 01:00 PM

This guy obviously doesn't know anything about the Euro game and he didn't pay any attention to the Draft.

Raskolnikov

10-22-2005, 01:48 PM

I have no idea what this means.
I think he s trying to say in a very peculiar way that larry bird didn t have anything to do with the fact ron s suspension came to an end, so that when you evaluate larry as a GM it s not fair mentioning artest (ending a players suspension is usually not what you call an off season move)

just a thought

SoupIsGood

10-22-2005, 01:50 PM

LOL sorry dude but trying to give Larry the credit for the nutjobs suspension ending is hilarious

nutjob? Hrrm... eh :hmm:

Hicks

10-22-2005, 02:22 PM

What he's saying is, you don't give the Pacers' GM a higher off-season grade because a suspended player isn't suspended anymore.

Anthem

10-22-2005, 03:18 PM

What he's saying is, you don't give the Pacers' GM a higher off-season grade because a suspended player isn't suspended anymore.

Ok, fair enough. But that doesn't mean the Pacers didn't have a good offseason.

Heck, forget Sarunas. Getting Granger at #17 should make the offseason an automatic A+.

Mourning

10-22-2005, 03:35 PM

Aggreed, but he didnt take the draft into account like the looks of it (and leaving that out is moronic by itself).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Bball

10-22-2005, 03:49 PM

Ok, fair enough. But that doesn't mean the Pacers didn't have a good offseason.

Heck, forget Sarunas. Getting Granger at #17 should make the offseason an automatic A+.

He said he wasn't going to take the draft into account because those players haven't played yet.

That's why I say his grading is 'whacked'. You have to take the draft into account to grade a GM...

-Bball

Hicks

10-22-2005, 03:51 PM

Ok, fair enough. But that doesn't mean the Pacers didn't have a good offseason.

Heck, forget Sarunas. Getting Granger at #17 should make the offseason an automatic A+.

I would agree with that.

Destined4Greatness

10-22-2005, 03:58 PM

Yet he talked about Bogus.

Anthem

10-22-2005, 04:26 PM

He said he wasn't going to take the draft into account because those players haven't played yet.

Fine. That's a stupid way to judge, but fine. My problem was he didn't even judge us on what he said we needed.

He said we needed "Perimeter shooters. An active big man who can score in the pivot. A pair of miraculous healings — a physical one for Jonathan Bender and a mental one for Ron Artest."

We apparently got the healings. Yeah, it's too soon to say, but then it's also too soon to judge. Other than that, we "needed" an active big man and a shooter. We don't have room on our roster for either one. I'm content with Samaki as a backup, and Sarunas didn't come here to be our HOF shooting guard, he came to be a backup point guard.

Why not judge us like Utah? He says they needed "A forceful center with pivot-power. A point guard." His evaluation was: "What were Utah's most important accomplishments during the off-season? The healing of Matt Harpring, Andre Kirilenko and Carlos Boozer."

They got credit for players healing, but healing wasn't even mentioned in their needs.

SoupIsGood

10-22-2005, 04:29 PM

Rosen has never let logic or common sense get in the way of writing total BS.

FreshPrince22

10-22-2005, 05:02 PM

Ok, fair enough. But that doesn't mean the Pacers didn't have a good offseason.

Heck, forget Sarunas. Getting Granger at #17 should make the offseason an automatic A+.

The only GM's grades who should be affected by the Granger pick are the one's who passed over him to let him fall in your lap. It doesn't exactly take a genius to select him if he's there where the Pacers picked. It's just luck of the draw.

Bball

10-22-2005, 05:04 PM

Fine. That's a stupid way to judge, but fine. My problem was he didn't even judge us on what he said we needed.

He said we needed "Perimeter shooters. An active big man who can score in the pivot. A pair of miraculous healings — a physical one for Jonathan Bender and a mental one for Ron Artest."

We apparently got the healings. Yeah, it's too soon to say, but then it's also too soon to judge. Other than that, we "needed" an active big man and a shooter. We don't have room on our roster for either one. I'm content with Samaki as a backup, and Sarunas didn't come here to be our HOF shooting guard, he came to be a backup point guard.

Why not judge us like Utah? He says they needed "A forceful center with pivot-power. A point guard." His evaluation was: "What were Utah's most important accomplishments during the off-season? The healing of Matt Harpring, Andre Kirilenko and Carlos Boozer."

They got credit for players healing, but healing wasn't even mentioned in their needs.

If someone writes a piece and finds reasons to complain or talk bad about the Pacers I don't automatically dismiss it as bad writing.

By the same token, if someone writes a glowing piece on the Pacers I don't proclaim them wise and a great writer.

In Rosen's case here, I have no problem reading his stuff and asking "WTF?". It was a terribly conceived column IMHO and had no basis in logic or reason.

Soup is Good has nailed it.

-Bball

Destined4Greatness

10-22-2005, 05:10 PM

The only GM's grades who should be affected by the Granger pick are the one's who passed over him to let him fall in your lap. It doesn't exactly take a genius to select him if he's there where the Pacers picked. It's just luck of the draw.

No bird was smart enough not to make the same stupid mistake and worry about his knee.

SoupIsGood

10-22-2005, 05:18 PM

The only GM's grades who should be affected by the Granger pick are the one's who passed over him to let him fall in your lap. It doesn't exactly take a genius to select him if he's there where the Pacers picked. It's just luck of the draw.

Somehow I think you'd be singing a different tune if Dumars had made the pick. :innocent:

Anthem

10-22-2005, 05:40 PM

The only GM's grades who should be affected by the Granger pick are the one's who passed over him to let him fall in your lap. It doesn't exactly take a genius to select him if he's there where the Pacers picked. It's just luck of the draw.

SoupisGood is right on this one.

That being said, it's kind of like shooting the moon in hearts. Whether you lose 23 points or everyone else gains 23 points is pretty much the same thing.

FreshPrince22

10-22-2005, 06:12 PM

Somehow I think you'd be singing a different tune if Dumars had made the pick. :innocent:

No, I never said he wasn't a great pickup at the spot. But, to reward him for other GM's stupidity? It's not like he reached for a player, and it turned out to be a great pick. The great pick just fell in his lap. I don't see how this should make him any better a GM. It just makes everyone who passed up on him that much worse. IMO, Danny was a no-brainer at that spot, that's why I wouldn't praise him for it. But that's just me.

SoupIsGood

10-22-2005, 07:24 PM

No, I never said he wasn't a great pickup at the spot. But, to reward him for other GM's stupidity? It's not like he reached for a player, and it turned out to be a great pick. The great pick just fell in his lap. I don't see how this should make him any better a GM. It just makes everyone who passed up on him that much worse. IMO, Danny was a no-brainer at that spot, that's why I wouldn't praise him for it. But that's just me.

A big part of being a good GM is being lucky IMO. :twocents:

sweabs

10-22-2005, 07:34 PM

No, I never said he wasn't a great pickup at the spot. But, to reward him for other GM's stupidity? It's not like he reached for a player, and it turned out to be a great pick. The great pick just fell in his lap. I don't see how this should make him any better a GM. It just makes everyone who passed up on him that much worse. IMO, Danny was a no-brainer at that spot, that's why I wouldn't praise him for it. But that's just me.

I agree with SIG on this one as well...if Dumars had of made the Granger pick we'd be hearing a different story from you.

Either way, by your mode of thinking, you can't give Dumars credit for landing Rasheed since it was due to Billy Knight's "stupidity". Your argument really makes no sense - every move is an indirect result of another GM's so-called "stupidity" as you put it. Bird could have easily taken Gerald Greene at the 17 spot by the way.

Whatever...............Darko for MVP!

BlueNGold

10-22-2005, 07:50 PM

No, I never said he wasn't a great pickup at the spot. But, to reward him for other GM's stupidity? It's not like he reached for a player, and it turned out to be a great pick. The great pick just fell in his lap. I don't see how this should make him any better a GM. It just makes everyone who passed up on him that much worse. IMO, Danny was a no-brainer at that spot, that's why I wouldn't praise him for it. But that's just me.
Danny dropped to #17 because of a perceived risk related to his health. There may have been good reason to be concerned. Apparently, many other GM's thought the same thing...and they are likely not all foolish people. I think it is more likely that one GM (Bird) and his staff was smart and/or lucky rather than 10 other GM's were idiots.

Kegboy

10-23-2005, 06:42 AM

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.